
>Rationality
Tables:
Applying
Polarizing Nonmaterial Monads in Risk Analysis
>by
Dallas
F. Bell, Jr.
1. Introduction
Rationality can be
explained as behavior derived from the perception of what's best
based on chosen compliance with or noncompliance with nonmaterial
realities. Those perceptions are obtained from the logic of the
chosen authority which sets the standard of good and baddeity.
Study of the infinite deity, God, is commonly known as systematic
theology and contains the foundational corpus of all nonmaterial
realities called monads. The corpus of monads is used to calibrate
the logic system of both believers and nonbelievers in God. Decision
options are not infinite and must be either compliant with or
noncompliant with reality, or truth. An example of a decision from
the material monad of gravity results in only two possible outcomes
of either acting on compliance with the truth of gravity or
noncompliance with the truth of gravity, "no" gravity. Likewise,
if the nonmaterial monad of love is not complied with the only other
option, "no" love, must be acted on.
The monads in
systematic theology, an infinite discipline, are relational and
dependant sets and subsets of all options of rationality. (Please
see the paper by Dallas F. Bell, Jr. titled The Monads of Systematic
Theology: Forming a Nonexhaustive Treebank and Logical Operators for
Decision Theory.) Analysts of the logic systems of individuals
and/or the groups they ultimately form should have an epistemological
understanding of rational possibilities. The probability of their
respective behavior(s) can then be predicted with greater accuracy.
For example, risk analysts assess information regarding levels of
risk for individuals and societies. Their estimation and evaluation
processes would be incomplete without the input of relevant
behavioral/rationality categories concerning the subject of their
analysis.
Human polarizing goals
to comply with or not comply with material or nonmaterial monads are
key to understanding specific rationalities for behavior(s) including
those associated with risk. This paper will use the tool of
rationality tables to address the nonmaterial monads that encompass
the cause and effect of all rationalities.
2. Rationality Tables
Rationality tables are
constructed from the entities, or monads, of systematic theology.
Each selfexistent monad is relational and dependant. They form
strings which create dyads and triads sets of bivalent logic. The
monads are positioned in sets to reflect the highest stratified
monad(s) from left to right. They are represented by (1) if the
polarizing goal of the subject is determined to be compliance with
the monad to be analyzed. The polarizing goal of noncompliance is
represented by (0). Two monads of (1,1) would equal a set of truth,
represented by the logic symbol T, because they are compliant with
reality. Two monads of (0,0) may equal a set of false, represented
by the logic symbol F, because they are not compliant with reality or
be considered truly consistent logic which is represented by T. Two
monads of (1,0) or (0,1) would also equal sets that are false, F,
because they are not completely compliant with reality.
"No" means x is
dependent and can't exist to any degree. "Not" means x may
partially exist as defined but the existence is in an incomplete
state. It is prudent to primarily use "no" since "not"
implies incorrect and untrue logic as demonstrated by the dyad
subsets of a monad x of (1,0) or (0,1) that equal false, F.
The rationality tables
employ the Boolean style operators of the conjunction "and" and
the condition of if and only if, "iff". A dyad table would have
the following possibilities of a logic set (x,y).
"and"
(0,0) = F, but is consistent logic of the lowest order of compliance with realities
(0,1) = F, inconsistent logic of a low induction order of compliance with realities
(1,0) = F, inconsistent logic of a higher deduction order of compliance with realities
(1,1) = T, consistent logic of the highest order of compliance with realities
"iff" biconditional
(0,0) = T, though it's
not compliant with realities it is consistent logic
(0,1) = F, because it is inconsistent logic
(1,0) = F, because it is inconsistent logic
(1,1) = T, because it is consistent logic
A triad table of a
logic set (x,y,z) is structured as follows.
"and"
(0,0,0) = F, lowest
(0,0,1) = F
(0,1,0) = F
(1,0,0) = F
(0,1,1) = F
(1,0,1) = F
(1,1,0) = F
(1,1,1) = T, highest
"iff"
triconditional
(0,0,0) = T, doesn't
comply with realities but is consistent logic
(0,0,1) = F
(0,1,0) = F
(1,0,0) = F
(0,1,1) = F
(1,0,1) = F
(1,1,0) = F
(1,1,1) = T
Dyad and triad tables
that reflect the classifications and symbols (T equals theology and
leads to the respective tracks of R, B, W, and E) in systematic
political science are:
dyad of a logic set
(x,y)
(1,1) = T1, the highest level of compliance with realities
(1,0) = T2
(0,1) = T3
(0,0) = (long term is
an overall unsurvivable level of noncompliance with realities)
triad of a logic set
(x,y,z)
(1,1,1) = T1, the highest level of compliance with realities
(1,1,0) = +T2
(1,0,1) = T2
(0,1,1) =  T2
(1,0,0) = +T3
(0,1,0) = T3
(0,0,1) =  T3
(0,0,0) = (long term is
an overall unsurvivable level of noncompliance with realities)
The above rationality
tables function to extend the expected utility of probability
analysis further into the realm often defined as bounded rationality.
Obviously, rationality by finite minds is cognitively limited or
bound by finite knowledge and capabilities. The monad of faith in
the present logic system of a subject should be expected to be
applied by the subject during times of uncertainty and the subject's
logic momentum of direction followed, unless the circumstances force
the subject to accept reality in order to survive.
3. Risk Analysis
Risk is the human
expression of the degree of probability of expectation of perceived
loss. The term risk implies the freewill to choose within the finite
knowledge of possibilities. The rationality of each person's logic
system can be analyzed using the rationality tables. For example, if
there is a need to determine the fire insurance payment scales for
home owners in a region it would be vital to know what the percentage
of past fire damages were attributable to arson by the policy
holders. A dyad for arson could be created from the monads of
stealing, or "no" Lb8, and bearing false witness, or "no" Lb9
producing the (0,0) set of logic. People that are accessed with the
set (0,0) should be considered as having a high risk for arson
behavior, the sets of (0,1) and (1,0) should be considered as
moderate risks, and a set of (1,1) should be considered a low risk to
attempt to profit from arson. Any test to determine those logic sets
can expect the subject with a (1,1) logic set to express their true
beliefs. However, subjects with (1,0) and (0,1) sets may change
their responses to reflect a position they perceive will contribute
to their receiving a more favorable policy than if they expressed
their true beliefs. Subjects with a (0,0) set will likely conceal
their beliefs and may even attempt to reflect a (1,1) logic set. It
is important to use as many monads as is possible to create dyads and
triads that point to the logic that is attempting to be determined
for predicting a behavior.
If the leaders of two
nationstates were to conduct talks to iron out differences they too
can be analyzed. If both leaders and their nationstates have equal
(1,1) logic sets of relevant monads such as love and justice an
outcome with low risk of failure can be expected. If they have (1,0)
or (0,1) logic sets a higher risk of failure should be the expected
outcome and if they each have a (0,0) logic set failure should likely
result. On the other hand, if each leader and their nationstates
have unequal logic the one with the (1,1) set of logic should be
expected to be cautious of the other that has either a (1,0) or (0,1)
set of logic and should not be expected to trust the one with a (0,0)
logic set. If one has either a (1,0) or (0,1) logic set they may be
expected to trust the one with a (1,1) or (1,0) or (0,1) set of logic
but not be expected to trust the one with a (0,0) logic set. If one
has a (0,0) logic set they should not be expected to trust those with
either a (0,1) or (1,0) or (1,1) logic set.
Risk analysts may use
rationality tables to improve other analytical tools such as fuzzy
analysis which is used to determine the relative behavior of
individuals in a group or region. META game theory formulae provide
a platform to plot behavior and find behavioral momentum. Rev.
Thomas Bayes' theorem is often used to merge old data with the
latest information to find the most recent probability. Bayes'
theorem is an equation where the probability of A occurring, given
the occurrence of B, is proportional of all occurrences of B in which
A also occurs. The computational version is that A and B are random
events that are probability related. The probability of A occurs,
given the occurrence of B, is given in the quotient. The numerator
is the probability of B occurring, given the occurrence of A,
multiplied by the probability of A occurring. The denominator states
the same term again but has added the probability of B occurring,
given the nonoccurrence of A multiplied by the probability of A not
occurring. Bayes' theorem aids in modeling sensitivity, the
accuracy of modeling uncertainly by averaging referred to as Bayes'
model averaging.
4. Conclusion
Hopefully, it has been
demonstrated that the rationality tables are an essential tool for
analysts and especially risk analysts for predicting probable
individual and group behavior. The paper has also indirectly
indicated the value of using the systematic political science
category of T1 compliance with realities. The short list of ultimate
realities, or monads, in systematic theology is considered by many
people to be God, Jesus, salvation, and eternal existence. The T1
triads with a polarizing consistent logic set of (1,1,1) would
reflect the true sets of (God, Jesus, salvation) and (Jesus,
salvation, heaven). The T3 triads of polarizing consistent logic set
of (0,0,0) would reflect the untrue sets of (no God, no Jesus, no
salvation) and (no Jesus, no salvation, no heaven). To know these
realities and reject them evokes the monad of reprobation, or
hardening the heart toward future compliance with realities. Meaning
that to reject nonmaterial realities produces eternal material
consequences. Axiomatically, it takes less faith and less risk to
comply with realities than to reject them.
In conclusion, math and
logic are mere mechanisms that reflect their input which may or may
not be accurate regarding probabilities. The human subjects of an
analysis should be considered as always having the freewill to change
direction at any time. Analysts that remain cognizant of that
reality and other truths should have enhanced sensitivity levels and
experience greater overall success than those that choose to ignore
the monads of systematic theology.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED (2005) Dallas F. Bell,
Jr.

